[concurrency-interest] Ops type names

Joshua Bloch josh at bloch.us
Tue Jan 15 15:52:25 EST 2008


David,

Thanks.  I agree that such a table would look nice in the JavaDoc.  And just
so that others beside Doug and I way in on this, does anyone else have a
preference among: Ops, Op, Fns, Fn?

          Josh

On Jan 15, 2008 12:38 PM, David J. Biesack <David.Biesack at sas.com> wrote:

>
> I too am torn between usability and consistency; I certainly
> see both sides of the issue. (I agree onInt or withInt don't
> seem to fit, either.)
>
> Just to get a high level view for the Ops.* API, one can see the layout at
>
>  http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pAoqbvjWjniKlWCMhVnW-ZA&hl=en
>
> There, I highlighted the names which do not follow the pattern.
>
> A table such as this (other layouts may be better) may be a nice addition
> to the Javadoc. (For compactness, I left off the Ops. prefix.)
>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:12:10 -0800
> > From: "Joshua Bloch" <josh at bloch.us>
> >
> > Gregg,
> >
> > Hmmm... the onInt and withInt don't really feel right to me.  If people
> > don't like intOp (or intFn), then I think we should go with David's
> > inclination (intToInt).
> >
> >           Josh
>
> --
>  David J. Biesack     SAS Institute Inc.
> (919) 531-7771       SAS Campus Drive
> http://www.sas.com   Cary, NC 27513
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at altair.cs.oswego.edu
> http://altair.cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080115/ab5a46cb/attachment.html 


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list